2. you say that QF doesn't require energy... but QF is fluctuating energy

3. krauss definition of nothing is not "non being" you see if i'm playing tugg of war with someone, and we both pull with the same energy, then the energy is zero net energy...but that doesn't mean we don't exist....so again where did this prexisting zero net energy come from?

almost atheist wrote:1. in your second video... 1:10 where did the gravity come from

What makes you think it had to come 'from somewhere'? That's entirely the wrong kind of question. Do you even know what gravity is?

2. you say that QF doesn't require energy... but QF is fluctuating energy

Do you know what energy is?

3. krauss definition of nothing is not "non being" you see if i'm playing tugg of war with someone, and we both pull with the same energy, then the energy is zero net energy...but that doesn't mean we don't exist....so again where did this prexisting zero net energy come from?

Faulty analogy. The tug of war isn't commensurate with the zero-point energy described by quantum field theory.

Stop ignoring my questions Almost Atheist!I have answered your questions previously, yes you made new posts (that were addressed by others), but I won't keep answering your questions while you ignoring mine. Just to clarify, there are four questions so I expect four answers.

1. What do you think about my explanation of the synthesis of ribonucleotides (see here)? Sufficient or not. If not, please explain.

2. During the discussion you said that a zero energy universe is pseudoscience and you cited a wikipedia article of zero-point energy which you said was pseudoscience. However you made two errors.

One: The zero energy universe isn't the same as the zero point energy. Two: I looked at the wiki article, it doesn't say that the zero point energy is pseudoscience. What it does say is and I quote:As a scientific concept, the existence of zero-point energy is not controversial. However, the ability to harness zero point energy for useful work is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community at large.[14][15] Zero-point energy is, by definition, a minimum energy below which a thermodynamic system can never go.[14] Thus, none of this energy can be withdrawn without altering the system to a different form in which the system has a lower zero-point energy.[16] Nevertheless, there have been numerous claims of devices capable of extracting usable zero-point energy. None of these claims has ever been validated by the scientific community.[17]

Thus the existence of zero-point energy is scientifically established. The pseudoscience the article is referring to is about claims that this energy can be utilized, which it can't but the energy still exists.

Would you honestly correct yourself on these errors?

3. If humans didn't come from apes then why are humans still apes? You said you didn't feel like we had enough evidence to conclude common ancestry. Well I don't feel that either way, I can demonstrate that. We can go much deeper in the systematic classification of life, the best evidence of common ancestry. If you are interested.

4. This is a point I liked to go deeper during the discussion about macro evolution. Would you accept that macro evolution (speciation) has been observed?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." Charles Darwin

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." Charles Darwin

{{1. What do you think about my explanation of the synthesis of ribonucleotides (see here)? Sufficient or not. If not, please explain.}}

I have no issue with explanation, as in, biochemically speaking it make sense...that doesn't change the likely hood of such an event actually happening...

{{2. During the discussion you said that a zero energy universe is pseudoscience and you cited a wikipedia article of zero-point energy which you said was pseudoscience. However you made two errors.}}

I'm listening

{{One: The zero energy universe isn't the same as the zero point energy. }}

sure, but either way, the notion of nothing from something is not supported in either case...

{{Two: I looked at the wiki article, it doesn't say that the zero point energy is pseudoscience.}}

sure

{{Thus the existence of zero-point energy is scientifically established. The pseudoscience the article is referring to is about claims that this energy can be utilized, which it can't but the energy still exists. }}

again it doesn't support the notion of something from nothing, that was my main point

{{Would you honestly correct yourself on these errors?}}

No one is perfect, however the errors are irrelevant to case i'm trying to make.

{{3. If humans didn't come from apes then why are humans still apes?}}

this is just simple semantics, just because a scientist classifies the human race as apes doesn't mean i must agree. The classification system you accept as fact (even if well substantiated) has no bearing on classification system i chose to use.

{{You said you didn't feel like we had enough evidence to conclude common ancestry. Well I don't feel that either way, I can demonstrate that. We can go much deeper in the systematic classification of life, the best evidence of common ancestry. If you are interested.}}

I understand the science behind the common ancestry theory...

{{4. This is a point I liked to go deeper during the discussion about macro evolution. Would you accept that macro evolution (speciation) has been observed?}}

For sake of conversation lets say evolution is true, I have don't really have an issue with it... my main point is that all the evidence we have points to something coming from something... Rationally speaking, it follow there must be a prime something.....

almost atheist wrote:for simplicity i will put your questions in brackets

{{1. What do you think about my explanation of the synthesis of ribonucleotides (see here)? Sufficient or not. If not, please explain.}}

I have no issue with explanation, as in, biochemically speaking it make sense...that doesn't change the likely hood of such an event actually happening...

It actually does though. If we know how it occurs or better put how ribonucleotides could be synthesized without pre-existing life, we know how likely it that process would occur in a prebiotic earth and the researchers noted that the conditions required for the synthesis of these molecules reflect the description of Darwin's warm little pond and also reflect the conditions expected of earth before there was life.

Although you didn't directly answered my question. I asked you if it was sufficient or not and you said "I have no problem with explanation". I didn't ask you wether you had a problem or not. I asked you for wether the explanation was sufficient or not and if not explain why. The reason I'm asking you this is because you asked me to give you the explanation during our google hangout. I promised I will and after I have it seems you are trying very hard to dismiss it, as if you never asked for the explanation.

almost atheist wrote:{{2. During the discussion you said that a zero energy universe is pseudoscience and you cited a wikipedia article of zero-point energy which you said was pseudoscience. However you made two errors.}}

I'm listening

{{One: The zero energy universe isn't the same as the zero point energy. }}

sure, but either way, the notion of nothing from something is not supported in either case...

I thought you were listening. This isn't the point. You made an error, that was the point.

almost atheist wrote:{{Two: I looked at the wiki article, it doesn't say that the zero point energy is pseudoscience.}}

sure

{{Thus the existence of zero-point energy is scientifically established. The pseudoscience the article is referring to is about claims that this energy can be utilized, which it can't but the energy still exists. }}

again it doesn't support the notion of something from nothing, that was my main point

One of your points to demonstrate that the zero energy universe is flawed was to call it pseudoscience and you referred to a wikipedia article, which was about the zero point energy. It is very relevant.

almost atheist wrote:{{Would you honestly correct yourself on these errors?}}

No one is perfect, however the errors are irrelevant to case i'm trying to make.

They are relevant. You made the point during our discussion which was in error. Would you honestly admit that you were wrong on this or not? Again I didn't ask you wether you were perfect and you quickly tried to ignore these errors as irrelevant. So dogged another question

almost atheist wrote:{{3. If humans didn't come from apes then why are humans still apes?}}

this is just simple semantics, just because a scientist classifies the human race as apes doesn't mean i must agree. The classification system you accept as fact (even if well substantiated) has no bearing on classification system i chose to use.

This is a blatant admission that you don't care about anything I say even if, as you put it, it is well substantiated. You will just ignore it and "chose" something else. Honestly, I am trying to believe you are even sincere.

It is a fact that humans are mammals. That is no semantics, that is no opinion of one scientists. That is a fact and we can demonstrate that. And being a mammal also demonstrates that we are all animals. Not all animals are mammals but all mammals are animals.

And it is also a fact that humans are Eukaryotes, mores specifically animals, more specifically Chordates, and Vertebrates, and Tetrapods, and Amniotes, and synapsids, and Mammals, and primates, and Simians, and Apes....

IN the exact same way a lion is a cat, an iguana is a lizard, A whale is a mammal, A fly is an insect, A bird is a dinosaur.

Again, If humans didn't come from apes then why are humans still apes?

almost atheist wrote:{{You said you didn't feel like we had enough evidence to conclude common ancestry. Well I don't feel that either way, I can demonstrate that. We can go much deeper in the systematic classification of life, the best evidence of common ancestry. If you are interested.}}

I understand the science behind the common ancestry theory...

Again, didn't ask you wether you understood the science behind that, though I very much doubt you understand that. I asked you wether you are interested in the best supporting evidence for common ancestry that also demonstrates that humans are Apes in the same way we are mammals. IF not then you are admitting you are not interested in evidence, which tells me something about you I hoped I was wrong about.

almost atheist wrote:{{4. This is a point I liked to go deeper during the discussion about macro evolution. Would you accept that macro evolution (speciation) has been observed?}}

And they are wrong. Micro evolution is evolution within a single species, Macro evolution is evolution across species or better put the emergence of a new species, i.e. speciation. I already explained that in this comment.

The reason why creationists won't consider speciation as macro evolution is because they are forbidden to admit it is observed so they change the definition whenever they can. The only way you are getting a creationist to say that macro evolution is the evolution of new species, is when they are yet unaware of the fact that speciation has been observed.

Thus dogged the question again. Would you accept that speciation (which is macro evolution) has been observed?

almost atheist wrote:For sake of conversation lets say evolution is true, I have don't really have an issue with it... my main point is that all the evidence we have points to something coming from something... Rationally speaking, it follow there must be a prime something.....

Again, ignoring everything I say. Le't not assume anything. Just answer my questions. Would you accept that speciation has been observed. Yes or no? And I can show that they have been observed.

Watched it. The only good point it made was that the definition of nothing is unclear. Laurence Krauss explains what he means by it. This is what I was saying during our discussion. Terms change as our understanding improved. Long time ago an empty glass would be described as a glass that has nothing in it and sometimes it is still described that way, but the glass isn't empty and even a vacuum, seemingly nothing to our eyes is still something. So we have to define what we mean by nothing that is consistent. Maybe nothing is not what we think it is.

And once more: Here is Krauss saying nothing in the actual sense you are saying it is.

And again, I don't hold that position. It is a hypothesis that has valid evidence behind it as the zero energy universe. And I have already given the evidence for it in a previous post. My actual position is since we cannot go back further then the planck time we cannot say yet what happened. Did the universe really came from nothing or was it in some sense eternal or something else?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." Charles Darwin

almost atheist wrote:this is just simple semantics, just because a scientist classifies the human race as apes doesn't mean i must agree. The classification system you accept as fact (even if well substantiated) has no bearing on classification system i chose to use.

Please, tell us what classification system you are using. I would like to know how and why it excludes humans as apes and would also wonder if it still keeps humans classified as animals or mammals.

When did you become a creationist? Furthermore, when did science start letting a pseudo-science define terms. In biology, macro-evolution and speciation are defined as the same. If we are going to talk about biology, we should use the terminology of biology.

Nesslig20 wrote:This is what I was saying during our discussion. Terms change as our understanding improved. Long time ago an empty glass would be described as a glass that has nothing in it and sometimes it is still described that way, but the glass isn't empty and even a vacuum, seemingly nothing to our eyes is still something. So we have to define what we mean by nothing that is consistent. Maybe nothing is not what we think it is.

When this topic comes up, I like to point out the term atom and how it changed from its classical definition of being the smallest thing and being whole, to us now knowing that it is made up of even smaller bits and also mostly space. Science marches on, and our old ideas are corrected.

I just want to start off by making the my most important point....which is.... all the evidence we have says something comes from something...and you agree that Krauss definition of "nothing" isn't literally "nothing." By definition something CANNOT come from nothing... so rationally speaking, there must have been a prime uncaused caused....otherwise we will have an endless regression which is irrational...I realize "God" has a lot of baggage but do you accept the prime uncaused cause..?

And i've done some further research, and still have not a suitable explanation to how sexual reproduction came about, i remember someone mentioned conjugation...but that doesn't explain how conjugation came about. If asexual reproduction is more beneficial then I see no reason why sexual reproduction would ever occur.

Your definitions don't get to dictate to reality. If that is a defining property of "nothing", then I simply don't believe there is such a thing, or have ever been, something that corresponds to your definition.

The claim that something cannot come from nothing is question-begging. Maybe some things can self-create? How do you know?

almost atheist wrote:And i've done some further research, and still have not a suitable explanation to how sexual reproduction came about

Suitable... for what? Your personal satisfaction?

almost atheist wrote:, i remember someone mentioned conjugation...but that doesn't explain how conjugation came about. If asexual reproduction is more beneficial then I see no reason why sexual reproduction would ever occur.

Forget all that stuff about conjugation between prokaryotic species. Read Nick Lane's "The Vital Question: Why is life the way it is?" for some contemporary stuff about how and why sex evolved.

In one way the short answer is that we don't know with much certainty, from another perspective we aren't completely ignorant and recent developments shows it's not as much of a question it used to be. And I recommend Nick Lane's book as a very good step towards that. The origin of sexual reproduction is still an area of ongoing investigation, it's going to take decades before it's been all fleshed out. This is just the nature of science, some times we don't know and have to wait. Some times the answers come generations after we die.

For millenia human beings were born, lived and died before anyone ever figured out how birds can fly despite being heavier than air. Quick hint: they weren't kept aloft by supernatural divine beings.

We'd all like to just know it right now and with great certainty. We can't. Tough shit.

almost atheist wrote:And i've done some further research, and still have not a suitable explanation to how sexual reproduction came about

Suitable... for what? Your personal satisfaction?

As a further note; even if we have no idea how sexual reproduction came about (and we might have, I haven't a clue) that does not in any way suggest that there actually is no nor can be a naturalistic explanation for it. If you don't have positive evidence that sexual reproduction (or any other evolutionary step for that matter) can not come about via natural processes you are just cramming your God to a gap.

almost atheist wrote:I just want to start off by making the my most important point....which is.... all the evidence we have says something comes from something...and you agree that Krauss definition of "nothing" isn't literally "nothing." By definition something CANNOT come from nothing... so rationally speaking, there must have been a prime uncaused caused....otherwise we will have an endless regression which is irrational...I realize "God" has a lot of baggage but do you accept the prime uncaused cause..?

And i've done some further research, and still have not a suitable explanation to how sexual reproduction came about, i remember someone mentioned conjugation...but that doesn't explain how conjugation came about. If asexual reproduction is more beneficial then I see no reason why sexual reproduction would ever occur.

In one video I showed you (two times, go up and see "youtube geek week") Laurence Krauss says nothing in the sense you say it is:No laws, no space, no time, no particles, no radiation, that's a good definition of nothing. So if this isn't nothing, I don't know what is.

And again to clarify, I don't necessarily take this position that the universe really did came from nothing. My position is that during the planck epoch, we don't know what happened back then. Physics as we understand it breaks down. Did it came from nothing? I don't know, Laurence posits an interesting hypothesis, which isn't contradicted by an observation and has some evidence backing it up like the zero energy universe and the universe being flat.

However what we do know is that your option of a "uncaused cause" is not coherent. The universe includes time such that you cannot have causation before time since there was not a before time. There is no such thing as before the universe. To ask what happened before the universe is like asking to draw a map south of the south pole. The question doesn't make sense. There was no time when the universe didn't exist, every time there was time it did exist and does and will so the the universe always existed. And since causation can only happen with time, to say the universe must have a cause doesn't make sense either in the same way the concept of "before time" has.

And I don't know if an infinite regression is irrational (you didn't justify that), but let's assume it is. Even if the universe always existed in the sense that across time the universe did exist, this doesn't make it an infinite regression, nor makes it an infinite regression to say that the universe and time came from nothing. But your option of an "uncaused cause" does since I only assume that you thing this prime cause is eternal. It existed for infinity before the universe did. And I won't even begin pointing out what the fuck existence even means without there being time and space, but by allowing such existence, the prime cause would be itself and infinite regression. If I say to you "I will wait infinity before eating my pizza (allowing for a pizza that will never spoil)" when will I eat my pizza? Answer never, you will never get to an infinity. Same with the prime cause, when did it decided (or not decided, unconscious) after infinity to create a universe? Again this doesn't make any sense. Unless the prime cause was also not eternal and after a finite existence it created the universe. But then again if it is not eternal, how did the prime cause came about if not eternal? From nothing?So no I don't accept the "prime uncaused cause".

With regard to the evolution of sex, many others here have already pointed a few things out. I would just show you this video. Again by a familiar person.

Another fun video that explains certain questions about the evolution of animal reproduction.

Now go back to my questions and this time answer them directly.

1. What do you think about my explanation of the synthesis of ribonucleotides (see here)? Sufficient or not. If not, please explain.

2. During the discussion you said that a zero energy universe is pseudoscience and you cited a wikipedia article of zero-point energy which you said was pseudoscience. However you made two errors.

One: The zero energy universe isn't the same as the zero point energy. Two: I looked at the wiki article, it doesn't say that the zero point energy is pseudoscience. What it does say is and I quote:As a scientific concept, the existence of zero-point energy is not controversial. However, the ability to harness zero point energy for useful work is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community at large.[14][15] Zero-point energy is, by definition, a minimum energy below which a thermodynamic system can never go.[14] Thus, none of this energy can be withdrawn without altering the system to a different form in which the system has a lower zero-point energy.[16] Nevertheless, there have been numerous claims of devices capable of extracting usable zero-point energy. None of these claims has ever been validated by the scientific community.[17]

Thus the existence of zero-point energy is scientifically established. The pseudoscience the article is referring to is about claims that this energy can be utilized, which it can't but the energy still exists.

Would you honestly correct yourself on these errors? Yes (you were wrong) or No (You won't admit you were wrong)?

3. If humans didn't come from apes then why are humans still apes? You said you didn't feel like we had enough evidence to conclude common ancestry. Well I don't feel that either way, I can demonstrate that. We can go much deeper in the systematic classification of life, the best evidence of common ancestry. Are you interested in that?

4. This is a point I liked to go deeper during the discussion about macro evolution. Would you accept that macro evolution (speciation) has been observed? Yes or no and if not I can show you several instances in which they have.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." Charles Darwin

Last edited by Nesslig20 on Fri Jun 17, 2016 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

almost atheist wrote:and you agree that Krauss definition of "nothing" isn't literally "nothing."

I certainly don't agree to this. Did you even read the article I linked? Krauss has read it, and agrees with my appraisal, and he's not the only well-known physicist in that camp. What Krauss is actually saying is that what we generally think of as nothing isn't really nothing because it's populated by entities that, quite literally, arise from nothing.

By definition something CANNOT come from nothing...

No, not by definition, by your palsied middle-world intuition, the same intuition that tells you that something can't be in two places at once which, were it actually true, would rule out your ability to post this guff employing technology based on the very same laws.

so rationally speaking, there must have been a prime uncaused caused....

For fuck's sake stop erecting this Aristotelian bollocks. Aristotle didn't know what he was talking about on this topic any more than he did on feminine dental hygiene.

otherwise we will have an endless regression which is irrational...

Why is this irrational? What's the problem with infinite regress? I see this asserted lots, but no justification for this is ever given. Show your working out.

I realize "God" has a lot of baggage but do you accept the prime uncaused cause..?

No.

And i've done some further research, and still have not a suitable explanation to how sexual reproduction came about, i remember someone mentioned conjugation...but that doesn't explain how conjugation came about. If asexual reproduction is more beneficial then I see no reason why sexual reproduction would ever occur.